delegate_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only give the generic flags (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds real behavior the annotations cannot convey: it cannot modify source files, cannot browse or execute commands, consumes Google quota and TypeSafe API credits, and returns a preview plus full result file plus verdict.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then inputs, then returns, then limits. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return shape (preview, result file, verdict) and the capability boundaries. It does not flag that non-idempotent, open-world execution means re-invocation re-spends credits and re-runs the task, a small remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 4 params, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'files' are selected absolute paths and that 'review_checks' are acceptance criteria, but says nothing about 'task' or 'context' — partial compensation only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and workflow: delegate one routine task to Gemini Flash, then batch-check the result with Jev. This is clearly distinct from bridge_status (status) and jev_evaluate (standalone review), though it never names the siblings to make the distinction explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives usable selection criteria — 'one self-contained routine task', supply 'explicit acceptance criteria' — and rules out a class of use via the stated limits. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling (jev_evaluate) for direct review without delegation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.